Full Judgment Text
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No. 9/2012
R.P.S.YADAV Appellant(s)
VERSUS
C.B.I. Respondent(s)
Date : 28/01/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, A.O.R.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
Ms. Disha Vaish, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, A.O.R.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment
is set aside. The appellant is stated to be on
bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged and
his sentence is set aside.
[KALYANI GUPTA]
[SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER
COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Kalyani Gupta
Date: 2015.02.12
13:36:59 IST
Reason:
[SIGNED REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2012
R.P.S. YADAV ….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the conviction of
the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence
under Section 7 along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- with a
default clause and for a period of two and a half years
with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with the usual default clause
for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d).
2. The case of the prosecution as narrated before the
courts below was that P.W. 3 Hamid Khan, the complainant
who was running a tailoring shop at F-237, New
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
Seemapuri, Delhi applied for a licence in the year 1994
to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short 'the
M.C.D.'], Health Department located in Shahdara Zone,
Delhi. In April, 1995, he received a letter from
M.C.D. calling upon him to furnish some documents for
running the tailoring shop. After furnishing those
documents when no further communication was forthcoming
from the M.C.D., he approached the appellant who was an
employee in the M.C.D., who was the concerned person
dealing with his application.
th
3. According to P.W. 3, when he met the appellant on 5
May, 1995 at 3:00p.m. in the office of the appellant,
the appellant informed him that to carry out the
issuance of licence to him, P.W. 3 will have to pay a
fee and that he should pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees
One thousand five hundred) by way of bribe amount. As
P.W.3 – the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe
amount he stated to have preferred a complaint with the
respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation [for short
'the C.B.I.'] who in turn organised a trap and along
with P.W. 3 – the complainant and a shadow witness P.W.
6 was also arranged. The formalities for carrying out
th
the trap were all set on 8 May, 1995. P.W. 3 –
PAGE NO. 2 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
complainant along with P.W. 6, the shadow witness went
th
to the office of the appellant on 9 May, 1995 and met
the appellant and in the course of the conversation when
P.W.3 – complainant inquired as to whether his job for
issuance of licence was carried out, the appellant
stated to have answered in the affirmative and in turn
wanted to know whether his demand of payment of bribe
was ready.
4. When P.W. 3 - the complainant informed him that he
has brought what was demanded by the appellant, the
appellant directed P.W. 3 the complainant to go along
with A2, one Janakraj to whom P.W. 3 was directed to
handover the money, i.e., the demanded bribe money.
Thereafter A2 Janakraj is stated to have taken P.W. 3
along with P.W. 6 to a nearby park outside the office of
M.C.D. where the money was stated to have been handed
over to A2 and thereafter as per the signal waived by
P.W. 6, the C.B.I. party reached the spot and A2 was
confronted from whom the money paid by P.W. 3 was
recovered and the hand wash was also taken. When A2
pleaded with the C.B.I. official that he never demanded
and that what was paid to him by P.W. 3 was at the
instance of the appellant and A2 was directed by the
PAGE NO. 3 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
C.B.I. officials to go to the chamber of the appellant
and carry out directions of the appellant without
showing any other gesture. A2, as directed, stated to
have gone into the chamber of the appellant along with
P.Ws. 3, 6 and others. It was based on the above
narration of the prosecution, the charge was laid
against the appellant along with A2 – Janakraj.
5. The key witnesses examined in support of the charge
of the demand, acceptance and recovery as against the
accused were P.Ws. 3 and 6 namely, the complainant and
the shadow witness. The trial court after considering
the entire evidence ultimately found that A2 – Janakraj
was not guilty of the charge of of the charges made
against him and acquitted him. The appellant was
convicted for the offence referred to above and was
imposed with the sentence as mentioned above. The High
Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant, the appellant is before us.
6. We have heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh for the
appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior
counsel for the C.B.I. We have also made our earnest
endeavour to ascertain whether for establishing the
charge under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read
PAGE NO. 4 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the fundamental requirement of demand, acceptance
and recovery of the bribe money was convincingly proved
against the appellant.
7. In that respect, we found that evidence of P.Ws. 3
and 6 were more relevant as they were the complainant
and the trap witnesses. When we perused the evidence of
P.W. 3 who turned hostile and was cross-examined at
length by the respondent up to the point of recovery
from A2 based on the alleged direction of the appellant
is concerned, we do not find any conflict. In other
words, the narration as made by P.W. 3 as well as P.W.
6 who were the key witnesses speak about the factum of
demand and acceptance of bribe, were to some extent
consistent in narrating the event up to the point of the
demand of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred)
as tainted notes to accused Janakraj at the park which
was located outside the office of M.C.D.
8. Thereafter, when we wanted to ascertain as to the
case of the prosecution that the said accused Janakraj
carried the direction of the appellant by handing over
the tainted money to the appellant and as to whether
such tainted currency notes were recovered from the
PAGE NO. 5 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
appellant, we find that there was no acceptable legal
evidence to that effect. We can profitably refer to the
evidence of P.W. 3 who stated initially that the
recovery of tainted currency notes after Janakraj was
taken to the chamber of the appellant was from the right
side pant pocket of accused Janakraj. Immediately after
making the said statement, P.W. 3 took diametrically
opposite stand and said that it was not recovered from
accused Janakaraj but was recovered from the appellant.
Immediately thereafter he went on to state that he did
not remember whether in his 161 Statement, stated that
the money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant
and not from the pocket of Janakaraj. In fact, P.W. 3
was confronted with his 161 statement where it was not
so recorded. He also confirmed in the cross
examination that hand wash of Janakaraj was taken by
allowing him to dip his left hand fingers in a freshly
prepared colourless solution of sodium carbonate which
turned pink.
9. Going by the above version of P.W. 3, it was clear
that both on the first occasion when accused Janakraj
was confronted by the officials of C.B.I. the process of
dipping his fingers in the solution was carried out and
PAGE NO. 6 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
the said process was repeated afresh after he was taken
to the chambers of the appellant. Secondly, nowhere in
the evidence of P.W. 3 either in chief or in the cross
we could deduce any statement to the effect that at any
point of time the hand wash of the appellant was taken
in order to show that after the initial recovery from
accused Janakraj the process was continued to ensure
that the demand of the appellant and acceptance of the
bribe money through Janakraj was completed by accepting
the money from accused Janakraj and ultimately recovery
was also effected from the appellant by the usual
practice of hand wash of the appellant.
10. In fact, we do not find any such legally acceptable
evidence either from P.W. 3 or from the other so called
independent witness P.W. 6 or the shadow witness in
order to show that the mandatory requirement for
conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
namely, the demand, acceptance and recovery was
chronologically proved as against the appellant. In the
light of our above conclusion based on the analysis of
the evidence led before the Court, we are constrained to
hold that the conviction imposed on the appellant by the
trial court as well as confirmation of the same by the
PAGE NO. 7 OF 8
Crl. A. No. 9 of 2012
High Court cannot be sustained.
11. The appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment is set
aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail
bonds shall stand discharged and his sentence is set
aside.
…...................................J
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
…...................................J
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 28, 2015.
PAGE NO. 8 OF 8